*Editor’s Note* – If I understand the information presented in the below linked-to article these people don’t want any big corporations to own, use or develop any land in Maine. These people don’t want any small, private development of land…or even the allotment of private housing scattered throughout the state. In short, they don’t want anybody to take advantage of any land or natural resources except them. It’s been that way for quite a while now and getting much worse. They keep forcing the hands of landowners and it appears the only way they can get what they want is to hand it all over to the State and Federal Governments, who can and will take what they believe is theirs to begin with.

And so where does that leave you and me?

“At some point, many Mainers have had the unsettling experience of discovering that a parcel of land on which they liked to hike, fish, hunt, or ski has been posted or developed. The Bangor Daily News once summarized the problem thusly: “Because land prices are being bid up by developers and by big outside money, Maine people are being pushed out of the market . . . [and] squeezed off the land that they or their neighbors once owned and to which they had traditional access.””<<<Read More>>>

Over the past few years, I have made many an utterance condemning the idiotic “social justice” approach to wildlife management. Perhaps if deer, bear, moose, loons, piping plovers, and all other animals, could sit down to a cup of coffee and “tell us how they really feel.” The job of providing for their welfare would be a bit easier…or not. Our human society, at present, believes that providing things for free – by utilizing another person’s money – is the correct thing to do, along with forcing idealistic lifestyles onto others. Evidently wildlife management is not exempt.

Animals can’t tell us how they feel, what they want, where they prefer to live and what their basic enjoyments in life are. Because we can’t communicate with animals, as with man, we are supposed to use science to figure this all out. There once was a day when it was acknowledged that in order to understand animals and care for their existence, the tried and proven principle of honest, scientific method and approach was an honorable challenge.

Today it seems that this scientific approach to wildlife management has been replaced with a form of social justice, the result of which has created a form of scientific injustice.

Social Justice can be defined as, “justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society.” With each enforcement of social justice, all hopes at individuality and even self-determination are forever lost.

Social Justice is a Leftist term of idealism. Environmentalism and Agenda 21, both glorified perpetuations of social justice, has put a stranglehold on future individualism and aides in the destruction of God-given rights. Agenda 21, pretending to be a guideline to “save the planet,” was the infrastructure needed by those seeking social justice. It has been woven into the very fabric of American life. Every movement we make, we run face to face with “sustainable development” – the ultimate destroyer of self determination and individualism – perhaps even life itself.

Agenda 21, therefore, has become a dominant theme in wildlife management, even if never spoken. It seems, whether by design or happenstance, no decisions within wildlife management departments, crafted to care for our wildlife, can be made unless first they seek the wishes of society. With a fully propagandized public, surely wildlife management has become a form of social justice. To continue this thought process, understand that “Climate Change” (note it’s in capitals) is all a part of Environmentalism, Agenda 21 Sustainable Development and Social Justice. They didn’t just independently appear one day.

I’m not here to debate the proclamation that all wildlife belongs to all the people. That’s not what this is about. Whatever happened to when wildlife departments, their foundations built on a firm understanding of the responsibilities before them, devised scientific management plans to achieve the goals that they knew would satisfy a majority of the public, and stand behind those decisions with strong, honest and real science to support it? Today, regardless of science, if you have enough money and holler loud enough, you’ll get what you want. The system is gamed.

So where are we? Can or will we ever return to rational, scientific wildlife management? Probably not, however, before the doom arrives, we might witness some degree of a push-back. It might even be a substantial one.

To be forthcoming, please understand that I do not subscribe to the idea that there are two political systems diametrically opposed to one another. The paradigm is manufactured, the result of which is vividly on display presently coming off the November presidential election. It all about propagandized perceptions.

Because the paradigm is fake, doesn’t mean that the perceptions of the people are fake as well. They honestly believe what they say and do…or at least they feel convinced enough to say and do some pretty far out things. As Yehushua stated in the last moments of his earthly life, “Forgive them Father for they know not what they do.”

Some are calling the events and fallout of the election a sudden fall of the Left and a rapid rise of the Right. Reading “Wretchard’s”, Richard Fernandez’s recent column, is a great example of how some are seeing things.

The premise being presented here is that the Left pushed and pushed and reached a point where they considered themselves to be in the catbird’s seat controlling everything of importance within their progressive lifestyle. All of a sudden, the Left came crashing down as the great wall of the Right was rapidly built around Donald Trump. As Fernandez describes it, “In an instant what was formerly yielding pudding becomes incredibly resistant like liquid armor. The Left hits a wall. Progressives, perplexed at this sudden change in resistance doubles down. But this makes the liquid armor even more impenetrable and they double down some more. Unable to understand i[f] they naturally blame conspiracies.”

So, what is this? Is any of this real? I’ll let you answer that question, however, there is everything real about perceptions. Perceptions are what guide us. It’s the forming of those perceptions that have, historically, been an extremely dangerous thing.

In the dozen years or so that I have covered the emotional politics of wolves, this paradigm of Left vs. Right (perhaps better recognized as Rep. vs. Dem. or better yet, Liberal vs. Conservative) has run its course of ups and downs. Often I wrote of how the Left (Environmentalists, Animal Rights advocates, Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, Social Justice warriors) always pushes for more; exercising their perceived power of controlling all things wolf, ignoring any and all opposition to their determination at achieving social justice for an animal regardless the cost. To what extreme will the Right go, if allowed?

The “pudding,” at times, runs up against “liquid armor.” In the Left’s comfort and incorrect perceptions of power, they went too far. The perceptions of the Left caused them to feel as though things have come crashing done on them. The Right began their push back. They are feeling power, some control. And so it goes. There is no ending.

I don’t believe for one minute that the progressive lifestyle is dead. Too many people love their immoral lifestyles, made legitimate in the minds of Leftists claiming a “changing world,” where all things desired must be achieved void of any thought toward morality and decency. But they do not see their world that way. What is dead is the lifestyle of tolerance, anchored by a truly moral foundation.

It matters not whether you and I want to accept the manufactured internal war of Left and Right. The reality is that a very large population of people believe (perceive) in “their side” and we are receiving hints that some are ready to fight to the death for it. What a very huge mistake that would be, especially when an honest examination of what one is fighting for is undertaken.

Historically, it has been a common existence of what appears to be ups and downs, or maybe Rights and Lefts, as each “side” maneuvers their pawns on a chess board in hopes of gaining more power than the other. Is any of it real, at least beyond the ends of their noses?

The perception may be that the Left has been in control too long. Their idealism has been forced onto the American people, for a time long enough that those on the Right believe they have “fought against” the “pudding” and have created “liquid armor.”

What then will happen to wildlife management by Social Justice, Agenda 21, Sustainable Development and Climate Change?

I’m offering little hope that wildlife management will ever return to what it should be, but can I help you to better understand?

The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) is in the process of keeping their cash flow solvent, by complying with the blackmail practices of the Federal Government, to devise game management plans for deer, moose, turkey and bear. In all preliminary readings of what to expect in these revised management plans, there is a common and readily repeated theme of making decisions within the plan based on social tolerances. In this case the social tolerances are the result of strong-arm indoctrination of Social Justice, through Environmentalism, Agenda 21 and Climate Change.

With this mind manipulation running its course and having achieved giant strides in promoting its agenda, there is little hope, short of a massive flow of liquid armor.

Perhaps another example of blind ignorance as to what has befallen us, can be seen in Maine’s effort to lay out tens of thousands of dollars to hire a company to conduct a survey of the Department and their practices. And because it’s a “well-known” and “well-respected” company, are we supposed to blindly take their propaganda, bought and paid for by MDIFW, as the gospel?

All questions in this survey are general in nature, with little or no specifics, including background data that might prompt the questions. The multiple choice of answers never include all the answers – only the ones the company wants you to choose from – often leaving respondents frustrated. Did I mention the survey was bought and paid for by MDIFW? (Learn about the Delphi Technique)

But, I don’t want to create my own distraction. Now that MDIFW has THEIR survey results, all, of course, favorable to MDIFW, that will become their answer, along with Climate Change, for everything. We’ve already seen it. It’s nauseating once you understand it.

I have searched for any kind of legislation that Maine might have that forces MDIFW to consider social tolerances within their wildlife management plans. I have found nothing. One then can only conclude that the choice to implement social tolerances into scientific processes, is that of a state government so deeply indoctrinated in the idealism of Social Justice, they believe it is the correct thing to do. How do you counter that? Isn’t this same sort of Social Justice prevalent at all levels of government, throughout all departments?

We have seen in this most recent presidential election one the biggest, if not the biggest swings in political idealism. Whether real or imagined, if this political push-back, i.e. the liquid armor, has and will have actual destructive powers to dismantle, at least to some degree, the progressive lifestyle running rampant in this nation, remains to be seen. Will any of this backlash and power gained, trickle down into state’s fish and game departments, like Maine’s, that will spoil the “pudding” of the progressives who have taken over wildlife management? One can only hope. Or none of this is real.

At some point in time, many aspects of wildlife management, based on Romance Biology and VooDoo Science, will run their course. Some people will see. Some won’t, nor do they want to. A push-back will ensue. To what strength remains to be seen. I doubt any will go noticed. The beast is too big with not enough people left who care enough to do anything about it. They love their Kool-Aid. Drink it and like it.

But always remember that democracy, as we have been brainwashed to believe is such a wonderful thing, is two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner. Perhaps at one meal time there may be two sheep and one wolf.

“It is an activist group that says “no” to every opportunity to allow Mainers to prosper, and it is working to make rural Maine a national park virtually devoid of human activity or meaningful employment,” LePage wrote. “I would request that you carefully review policy positions before donating to them in the future.”<<<Read More – if you can get through the barrage of pop-up ads>>>

The concept of sustainable development (“SD”), originally articulated in 1987 by the United Nations (“UN”) World Commission on Environment and Development,2 has long been recognized as being simultaneously global and local in political scope and ambition. It embodies an ostensibly universally applicable (and, until recently, legally unenforceable) set of twenty-seven intergenerational principles integrating environmental, economic, and social concerns enumerated in the 1992 UN Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. 3 This includes the scien tifically progressive yet economically h armful Principle 15, known as the “precautionary principle.” Additionally, it incorporates a comprehensive road map for nation al and subnational governmental implementation of those principles, known as Agenda 21.4<<<Read More>>>

*Editor’s Note* – While this proposed legislation could be a good one, wouldn’t the difficulty in this proposed law present itself through poor definitions? As an example: This proposal prohibits the implementation of laws and policy/programs that originate from Agenda 21. Agenda 21, and all of its associated fascist regulations and ideology are so deeply ingrained within the fabric of the United States that it would be virtually impossible to stop. Any person who is a member of any local municipality, for instance, could have the same ideology as Agenda 21, through choice or was achieved through forms of brainwashing, propagandizing and educational programs. How do you stop that now?

Agenda 21 is a terrible regulation guideline that only totalitarian rule and the desire for it would seek. Passage of this proposed bill might curtail such activities but because the senseless, ideology is so heavily infused into U.S. culture, I doubt it will get much support. Please prove me wrong.

This may be a wake-up call and a good reminder that after the fact, it’s often too late for action.

An Act To Ban the United Nations Agenda 21 in Maine

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows:
Sec. 1. 1 MRSA c. 22 is enacted to read:

CHAPTER 22

PROTECTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS

§ 831. United Nations Agenda 21; international laws

1. Definitions. As used in this section, unless the context otherwise indicates, the following terms have the following meanings.
A. “Agenda 21” means the plan of action adopted by the United Nations in 1992 at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development and published in “Agenda 21: Earth Summit – The United Nations Programme of Action from Rio” (United Nations publication, ISBN 9789211005097, 1993).
B. “Political subdivision” means any municipality, plantation, county, quasi-municipal corporation or special purpose district, including any public-private partnership, of the State.
C. “Public-private partnership” means any partnership in which the State or a municipality, plantation, county, quasi-municipal corporation or special purpose district is a partner.
D. “State” means the State and any office, department, agency, authority, commission, board, institution, hospital or other instrumentality of the State.
2. Prohibition on restricting private property rights. The State or any political subdivision may not adopt or implement policies that intentionally or recklessly infringe on or restrict private property rights without due process as may be required by policy recommendations originating in or traceable to Agenda 21 or any international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the United States Constitution or the Constitution of Maine.
3. Prohibition on transactions with organizations assisting in implementation of Agenda 21 policies. Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, the State or any political subdivision may not enter into any agreement with, expend any sum of money for, receive funds or contract services from or give financial aid to any nongovernmental or intergovernmental organization accredited or enlisted by the United Nations to assist in the implementation of the United Nations policies related to Agenda 21.

SUMMARY

This bill prohibits the State or any political subdivision of the State from adopting or implementing policies originating in the United Nations Agenda 21 or other international laws that restrict private property rights without due process. Because the United Nations has accredited and enlisted numerous nongovernmental and intergovernmental organizations to assist in the implementation of its policies related to Agenda 21 around the world, the bill prohibits the State or any political subdivision from entering into agreements or financial arrangements with those organizations.

A recent study showed that a recent study isn’t really a recent study at all. A scientific study, one that happens to be recent, showed that recent studies aren’t really recent studies at all but instead are non scientific, romance editorials designed to provide the public with recent study information so that they can write letters to the editor. Make any sense? I didn’t think so.

But don’t get me wrong. First amendment right to free speech is cherished and as much as I dislike reading fiction I wouldn’t ask that it be changed.

Everyone wishing, according to newspaper submission guidelines, can submit their opinions about issues that concern them. Take the spring bear hunting issue in Ontario, Canada. At least two sides exist and according to one side, the other side is wrong, blah, blah, blah.

If you are writing to a credible audience then I would suggest being credible. Accusing the other side of not relying on “scientific studies” and playing on people’s emotions, while you fail to use “scientific studies,” or name your resources and play on people’s emotions, just isn’t going to get the job done.

To explain about “science,” “recent studies,” and “data suggests,” one has to understand what those talking points mean. Science, unfortunately is not science any more. It’s what I call new science that is part of what a friend of mine calls “scientism.” Part of the process to promote agendas is to convince the public that you have the right “science” and everyone else is wrong. After all, there’s a lot of money in being able to do that successfully.

For the very clever person, they utilize the term “peer-reviewed” science or a “peer-reviewed” recent study. Peer reviewed today means some person with abbreviations after their name lied and another person with abbreviations after their name swore to it. This has become a very bad situation for the real and respected science community.

My favorite term is “recent data suggests.” I remember once, several years ago, a man suggested I take a long walk on a short pier. His suggestion meant nothing and more times than not neither does “recent data suggest.”

But getting back to Ontario’s spring bear hunt – which by the way a court tossed out the lawsuit to stop the hunt – in an opinion letter, a person states that a spring bear hunt will do nothing for public safety issues and suggests it might make it worse. The author accuses one side of failing to use science in making its decisions about the spring bear hunt while failing to use any science to argue against a bear hunt……well other than “recent studies,” and “science suggests.”

It is important as well, that is when writing to a credible audience, to be realistic. The writer says that he is, “saddened by the failure of residents in bear country to take responsibility for educating themselves on this issue and on the powerful tools we already have for achieving the goals the spring bear hunt cannot.”

Of course the writer has every right to be sad, but it doesn’t change reality. I might be sad that people who fail to obey traffic laws kill thousands of people a year, regardless of the education and laws that exist, but the reality is people break traffic laws. I may be saddened that criminals illegally own guns and use them to kill innocent people, regardless of how much education and laws are put on the books, but criminals exist and they keep getting guns and killing people. I may be saddened that politicians are crooks and are allowed to be, but the truth is stupid people keep electing stupid crooks.

Once intelligent people understand that concept then instead of practicing insanity and repeating the same process over and over and achieving the same results, perhaps something ought to change. The truth is people are not going to take responsibility about living with bears. The truth is, does anybody have to be forced to live in danger of wild animals because someone who studies Agenda 21 wants you to change your lifestyle for bears, wolves or rats? People today have been brainwashed against taking responsibility and thinking for themselves about anything. The programming of the minds has left us with reliability on government to do things for us. Government says kill the bears, we kill the bears.

And on the other hand, we have another writer who is on “the other side” evidently and presents his case:

Annual birthrate is extremely high. Given aproximately 30,000 sows of cub-bearing age with an average birthrate of 2.4 cubs annually – even with a 50% cub survival rate – this still suggests increased population annually is 36,000.

Recorded harvest mortality is merely 5,000. Despite the low harvest, the Ministry of Natural Resources claims the black bear population is not growing out-of-control in Ontario. Therefore, when you think about it, 31,000 bears must die annually as unrecorded mortality (road kills, rail kills, and those killed to protect livestock and humans).

This sounds a bit less whiny than the other writer who can’t seem to address reality but yet the failure of this editorial is that we have no idea where he got these numbers. People aren’t going to try to verify these numbers and maybe that’s the point of not providing a source. If they aren’t fabricated then wouldn’t a short note of resource have made the letter much more effective?

A quick Google search for “Ontario Black Bear Facts” produces quite the array of nothingness and I’m suggesting therein probably lies many of the problems people who care about truth face. Even the Ministry of Natural Resources provides nothing, that is that I can easily find, about facts on bears except how to learn to live with bears.

And so, it remains the same ole, same ole. Somebody with a platform spouts off and pretends to be presenting “facts,” “truth,” “recent studies,” “peer-viewed studies,” and “recent data,” and people are willing to accept what they read if it sounds good. Truth always seems to get in the way.In conclusion, I would like to say that a recent, peer-reviewed study showed that everything that Tom Remington writes is excellent writing and never wrong. Please tell everyone you know.

People who love their pets consider them part of the family and as such, many of us treat them as though they are our “children.” Dogs and cats are special four legged creatures to many of us, and we cherish them. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and UN Agenda 21 are working together to destroy not only America’s agricultural industries, but also the ownership of our pets.<<<Read the Rest>>>

*Editor’s Note* This article is republished on this blog with the permission of the author. Please respect intellectual property ownership. I encourage all readers to subscribe to the printed version of The Outdoors. You can find information in the right side bar of this blog. Thank you.

In 1948 when Wildlife Management Institute President Ira Gabrielson was directing WMI staff studies of the organization, authorities, and programs of wildlife agencies in 31 states and two Canadian provinces, he was also helping UNESCO form the “International Union for the Preservation of Nature” (later IUCN).

Thirteen years later he helped UNESCO form the “World Wildlife Fund” and served at a high level in both organizations for many years. Is it just a coincidence that these and other so-called wildlife conservation groups he belonged to or worked with, have been promoting the UN “Agenda 21 Sustainable Development” and “Biodiversity” agendas since they were presented at the UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.

Several years ago, I attended an SFW membership drive banquet in Boise as an observer and found a small group at one table quietly discussing the UN agendas that were being promoted by Idaho and Utah wildlife managers. SFW Utah founder Don Peay invited one member of this group to address the audience but said it was too early for him to reveal some of what he knew.

Sadly, the fear that divulging how state wildlife agencies promote and follow the UN agenda might subject knowledgeable people to ridicule, apparently stopped them from informing the general public for too many years.

Conley Attacked Citizens for Telling the Truth

In 1996 IDFG Director Jerry Conley resigned and was hired by the Missouri Dept. of Conservation (MDC) as its new Director to implement a “Coordinated Resource Management Plan to sustain our natural environment.” The Plan, introduced by MDC in 1995, also endorsed creation of a “UN Biosphere Reserve” in the lower Ozarks.

Property owners convinced their legislators that the state management plan was identical to the UN Agenda 21 plan for sustainable development, and would allow non-governmental groups to disburse federal funding. Conley denied the citizen allegations but was forced to withdraw the plan on March 19, 1997.

But in a March 27, press release Conley ridiculed citizens’ groups that had expressed concern about the United Nation’s influence on the CRMP as “pure unadulterated bunk.” He also said concerns about shifting governmental authority over to non-elected groups was “absolute hogwash.”

That is exactly the type of character assassination that people who reveal hidden facts get from state F&G agencies. Yet three years later, the Missouri citizens’ fears were confirmed when Congress gave the Assn. of Fish and Wildlife Agencies control of the new State Wildlife Grants.

Congress Is Unwilling to Correct Its Mistakes

A representative from the anti-hunting group, Defenders of Wildlife, was part of the 3-person AFWA committee that established the criteria and determined when they were met in order to receive the SWG matching grant funds. And then Congress went a step further and gave AFWA six million dollars of dedicated P-R and D-J excise taxes each year called Multi-State Conservation Grants, and allowed it to give the money to groups of its own choosing.

The only stipulation was that any group accepting the MSG money must submit a signed statement that it did not spend that specific money opposing regulated hunting, fishing or trapping. However the MSG grants were used for such purposes as funding a survey of mostly non-hunters to see if they supported F&G funding “Watchable Wildlife” and other nongame programs.

I thoroughly documented all of this and a lot more six years ago in the July-Aug 2007 Outdoorsman. But I have no way of knowing how many of the several hundred legislators and several members of Congress I sent it to even read it. Many of them rely on staff to select what they believe is important but they do respond to letters from constituents – if readers take the time to contact them.

Agenda 21 and Biodiversity are Already Implemented

With virtually no voiced opposition, state wildlife agencies continue to implement new UN Heritage Sites and discourage rural dwellers from living on land that may have been in their family for generations. They make sure that each wild big game animal that is harvested costs more then it would to pay someone to breed, raise, feed and process that same animal.

But, in my opinion, the worst crime of all was their convincing Western Governors to put them in charge of implementing the UN Biodiversity Agenda to prevent natural resource development and lock up vast tracts of public land from reasonable use by humans. With all the tools at their disposal if wildlife biologists can’t or won’t stop the decline of game populations that are worth millions of dollars to their state’s citizens, what qualifies them to impose severe restrictions on landowners and the general public to allegedly halt that decline?

Despite the U.S. Senate’s refusal to ratify the Agenda 21 Biodiversity Treaty President Clinton signed two decades ago, it has been implemented with legislation by so many state and local governments now that we have a nightmare to unravel. Isn’t it about time for you to break the silence and discuss this issue with your elected officials who still have the power to undo this madness?

*Editor’s Note* – The below quote was posted as a comment in an open thread yesterday. I have decided it warranted being places as a front page story for readers to examine and follow up with reading the entire article from which the quote can be found.

… the plan is brilliant. You reduce the number from 7+ billion by at least 33% without firing one shot. You simply privatize all natural resources and then price access so that the bottom third of the globe’s population cannot afford it. And so, they die; it will be the biggest die-off of the Anthropocene epoch. From Papua New Guinea to Croatia, from Bolivia to Ghana, from Canada to Central America, from Scotland to Nigeria, from Australia to America, forests, water rights, mineral rights, arable land, national parks, and much more is being privatized with the usual outcomes: degradation, displacement of indigenous populations, higher costs, lack of access to necessary resources — starvation, death, social unrest and rebellion… (‘Natural Capital and the Real End Game’, Sandy Krolick)